What the Wall Street Journal doesn't really get is that we didn't vote for Democrats ... we merely fired Republicans.

Democrats just happen to be the temporary beneficiaries of this activity. It's not that we want Democrat policies ... we don't.

But if we're to fire Republicans, we're only left in this country with one alternative ... and that is Democrats.

We didn't hire Democrats so much as we fired the Republicans who were doing a piss-poor job.

The benefit of having only Democrats to vote for is that we know they're incompetent and won't ever actually be able to implement their policies. And even if they were able to implement some policies, those would be so unpopular that there would be a huge Republican mandate to roll back those policies.

So, the media really doesn't get it. As far as Congress is concerned we didn't vote for Democrats ... so much as we voted against Republicans (remember Duke Cunningham, Foley, hell John McCain trying to push amnesty down our throats?)

Now, we're in the mood to also fire the Democrats to teach them a lesson. And it's going to be a good firing come November. MSM heads will explode live on television. Pass the popcorn!

More than a dozen Republican lawmakers supported stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service, in letters obtained by The Wall Street Journal through the Freedom of Information Act.

Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who called the stimulus a "wasteful spending spree" that "misses the mark on all counts," wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in October in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, "intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs." A spokeswoman for Mr. Ryan said the congressman felt it was his job to provide "the basic constituent service of lending his assistance for federal grant requests."

Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who called the stimulus a "wasteful spending spree" that "misses the mark on all counts," wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in October in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, "intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs."

Why do people think that works as a "gotcha"? The only thing worse than saddling constituents with the bill for the stimulus would be saddling constituents with the bill and not giving them any benefit. It's THEIR money!

The fiction that the Dems are trying to "govern from the left" does not become truth--or any less daft--no matter how many times it is repeated by the right and their news organs such as the WSJ.

Would that the Dems WOULD try to govern more from left of center, at least, rather than as suckdogs of the wealthy! A brute who sips tea with his pinky raised is no less a brute, and the Dems, if not so obviously insane as many on the right, are no less whores for the empire and its owners.

And, hey, I'm still looking for that "liberally biased media" that controls all we see, read, and hear...they hideout pretty good, is all I can figure.

The same thing happened with Republicans, didn't it, and their feeble attempt to change Social Security?

Yes and you didn't see Bush trying to continue to try ramming it down the throats of the electorate either.

I guess to an outsider Bayh's decision not to seek re-election may seem odd but to those of us who live in Indiana, it's not much of a shock. Bayh is a moderate, classical blue dog Democrat. He enjoyed popularity in a traditionally red state because he wasn't a San Fran whackjob who saw every problem as a nail for the Federal government to hammer.

Liberals didn't like Bayh because they perceived him as not 'standing for anything'. Well maybe they missed the part where he listened to the voters rather than do what he thought the voters needed.

I'm a conservative who had voted for Bayh both as Governor and Senator and I'm not ashamed of it.

"The fiction that the Dems are trying to "govern from the left" does not become truth--or any less daft--no matter how many times it is repeated by the right and their news organs such as the WSJ."

LMFAO That's right, nationalizing two auto companies, major banks, the attempted nationalization of the healthcare system...none of that constitutes governing from the left. Silly voters. What WERE we thinking?

Why do people think that works as a "gotcha"? The only thing worse than saddling constituents with the bill for the stimulus would be saddling constituents with the bill and not giving them any benefit. It's THEIR money!

So the stimulus was a benefit to the constituents? Then why were every single Republican against it??

I guess if you were a union member or a newly hired federal employee or current one who got a nice fat pay raise then yes, it was quite beneficial. For those of us worried about the fiscal health of the country, not so much of a benefit.

Imagine if, one year ago, Congress had passed a stimulus bill that really worked.

Let’s say this bill had started spending money within a matter of weeks and had rapidly helped the economy. Let’s also imagine it was large enough to have had a huge impact on jobs — employing something like two million people who would otherwise be unemployed right now.

If that had happened, what would the economy look like today?

Well, it would look almost exactly as it does now. Because those nice descriptions of the stimulus that I just gave aren’t hypothetical. They are descriptions of the actual bill.

Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com.

They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.

Not everyone getting stimulus money was a government employee or union member, but a great many were. Money went to states, who spent it to do things they were already doing and couldn't afford to. Joe Biden is right when he says the stimulus package created and saved jobs, but it is saving and creating the wrong ones. It is moving money in ways that prevent the creation of even more jobs and more productive ones.

Peter V. Bella said..."Jeremy, Then why is the unemployment rate still hovering around ten percent?"

Anybody who has ever taken an econ or biuusiness course knows that job growth is the last thing one sees coming out of a recession.

Companies lay off personal to save money, then only rehire when either necessary or affordable.

Because we've streamlined our economy over the past two decades via computers and much outsourcing, there are many jobs that probably will never return.

Oh, and by the way, when Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was President, during his recession, things didn't turn around four four years:

"According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery.From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984."

So you see? U.E. was OVER 10% all the way up until Ronnie held office for four years.

Maybe you should do some research before asking such stupid questions.

Hey garage, why not move to Greece and see what kind of country we're going to end up with if more of your dumbass liberal policies get passed.

We were hemorrhaging 700k jobs per month when Obama took office from Bush's reign of error, and if McCain were elected, we'd be in a barter economy right now. Since that didn't happen, I think I'll stay right here.

"According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery.From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984."

According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending...

Well no fucking shit. Through the eyes of a Keynesian economist deficit spending is always a good thing and the source of economic fixes (even thought that misunderstands Keynes, who, however, was still wrong even when understood correctly.)

Peter V. Bella said..."Jeremy 1.6 million jobs would have a direct major impact on unemployment. Either the jobs are there or they are not."

"Creating" NEW jobs doesn't necessarily have any effect on current unemployment roles. There are many, many who are unemployed who don't show up in the unemployment numbers...because they're no longer collecting benefits.

The unemployment rates ONLY count those who are actively COLLECTING benefits...NOT those who have already collected all they can or can't (independent contractors/real estate sales people, etc.)...and those who have stopped looking for a job.

spongeworthy said..."You do know what the word "gradually" means, don't you? And if unemployment, as you are claiming, stayed at 10% for four years of "Ronnie's" first term, how did he ever get re-elected?"

I never said it "stayed" at 10%+.

Can you read?

"From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984."

Which means we could have exactly the same situation play out as we recover from the current recession...correct?

Because they are too lazy to get jobs. They will not work. They want their careers back. They refuse to work at anything else. Just like people on welfare, they are lazy.

BTW, don't you find it dishonest that they are dropped from the stats. The are still not working. Which is why economists- you know those guys who study economics- state the actual unemployment rate- the real numbers- are one and a half to two times the governments reported rate.

Peter - I'm not defending Goldman Sachs, I'm merely posting information that relates to their role in Greece's current problems.

All of the major corporation donate millions to candidates so if you want to get into that, let's talk about candidates from BOTH sides of the aisle...unless of course you think McCain and the Princess didn't accept any corporate donations.

Spongehead - You ignore the entire quote I provide and point to my comment that the U.E. was up over 10 "all the way" until Ronnie was re-elected?? (My deepest apologies for misquoting.)

Read it again, dickhead and tell me why it's any different that what we're seeing right now:

"According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery.From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984."

Google Goldman Sachs and Greece and see what pops on you little screen.

Well Jeremy I did just that and found the article very very interesting indeed. I wonder if this part of the article (assuming you actually read it) had any meaning to you.

The euro membership rules place strict caps on the size of government deficits relative to a national economy, but Goldman Sachs and other banks helped Greece raise cash earlier in the decade in ways that did not appear in the official statistics.

So the Greek government used Goldman Sachs to help them raise more money than they should have to spend on more government social programs, which by the way, constitute over 51% of the country's GDP (Linky here

So that kind of goes back to my point, massive government spending does not do a nation good. Now you go ahead and blame it all on Goldman Sachs, the real problem is hiding behind the curtain.

I love it when someone like myself provides factual information to counter the silly crap posted here...

Yep you just keep on doing that numnutz. It takes a real moron to post "factual stuff" that undermines their own argument.

Hoosier Moron - I never said Goldman Sachs was good, nor do I deny Greece spends much of their money on public employment...I merely pointed out the fact that G.S. played a role...

As to you usual BIG GOVERNMENT tripe...are YOU and others here going to sign a pledge, refusing to accept Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's Benefits, Social Security and other BIG GOVERNMENT (socialist) programs?

We BOTH know the answer to that, don't we?

And once again:

"According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery.From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984."

That's it? That's your correction? Claiming you "misquoted"? You didn't "misquote, Jeremy. You made a mistake, and a doozy at that: You made a claim that ran counter to your own provided evidence. And then threw in some insults to compound it, all the while claiming you didn't do what you plainly did. Pathetic.

I swear, kicking you around the Web is like kicking a puppy. Fortunately, I enjoy putting the boot to errant pups.

Tell us, Oh Wise Sage of Econ 101, what acts of Saint Ronnie do you consider to be "Keynsian". I'll give you 2 hints:

1) Ryhmes with "fax butts".

2) We won't see any under Obama.

And there's your answer to this pearl:

Read it again, dickhead and tell me why it's any different that what we're seeing right now:

Hoosier Moron - I never said Goldman Sachs was good, nor do I deny Greece spends much of their money on public employment...I merely pointed out the fact that G.S. played a role...

LMAO! Oh you little disengenious POS. You know exactly what you were implying when you posted that and you got called out on it. Your inane follow up on 'big government' programs I should waive proves it.

Where on earth are these jobs being created? People around here are continuing to lose their jobs. The local weekly paper has a constant list of bankruptcies. The foreclosures are page after page. Talking to people who still work where I used to, report continuing jobs losses. These are not people being laid off either, these are people being permanently let go.

As for Reagan, you really need to read up on what happened after his disasterous lowering of the top tax rate.

We lost so much revenue, he then RAISED taxes at least 4 times to try to get things back in order.

*During Reagan's tenure, income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years (WEALTHY), while social security and medicare taxes increased. (MIDDLE AMERICANS)

During Reagan's time in office the national debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion.(DEFICIT SPENDING=DEBT)

ALSO: Average productivity growth was slower under Reagan and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan. Furthermore, real wages declined during the Reagan Presidency. (MIDDLE AMERICANS)

ALSO: Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year’s reduction.(OH-OH)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax (MIDDLE AMERICANS) and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years (MIDDLE AMERICANS), mainly through closing tax loopholes for business (SMALL BIG AND SMALL BUSINESSES).

So we can assume there is a banking conspiracy in the Obama administration right? Just like Greece."

We can certainly know the Obama administration is continuing the previous administration's servile obeisance to the prerogatives of the banks, and all their so-called "stimulus" plans are intended to benefit the government's only constituency that counts...the banks, Wall Street, the military-industrial-corporate complex at large.

@ Jeremy & Unemployment: How can you post comments and not know this??Well, cuz it's not true. Definition of unemployment from BLS: Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Note: nothing about actively receiving benefits.

And the administration could have joined you in asking the public for some time to let the Keynesian magic beans work, but instead they projected employment would be immediately increased which, of course, hasn't happened.

Robert Cook - Well, based on the DOW going from about 6,000 on the day President Obama took office...to 10,000 today, I would think his brand of economics has had a hand in helping any American who holds stocks, mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, pensions, etc.

*Take a look at where your retirement funds or investments are today...versus January of 2009.Ours is UP 40%...discounting any contributions since he took office.We've also invested in 5 specific stocks that are UP 300%.

I'm not here to defend the "banks," but without them how exactly do you propose the economy function?

Hoosier Dolt - You really need to bone up on your reading comprehension.

This is my initial posting that relates to G.S.: "Maybe you should do some more research into Goldman Sachs' role."

Yes and what exactly does that have to do with anything? My point was Greece was a textbook example of a nation that has uncontrolled government spending. What does G.S have to do with it? I dunno other than being a tool used by the Greek government to get around EU rules on deficit spending as a proprotion of GDP, which, was central to my comment.

I mean what exactly was your point because it really didn't offer anything to the conversation. Other than making you look more stupid then usual.

Why not buy a newspaper or a periodical or, hey...maybe even a book and educate yourself?

You might want to take your own advice and actually read those items before using them to make some kind of point.

The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs.

Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment.

Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims").

Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.

Some countries base their estimates of total unemployment on the number of persons filing claims for or receiving UI payments or the number of persons registered with government employment offices as available for work.

These data are also available in the United States, but they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups.

To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered.

In addition, the insured UNEMPLOYED EXCLUDE the following:

1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits 2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force) 3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job 4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits

*Right now, I would estimate the unemployed to be at at least 14%, and it was probably at that level when Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was at the helm...BUT...that's NOT how the government reports U.E.

This is Jeremy's MO. Post a silly comment cut-and-pasted from some source that he refuses to link. The clip will most liely refute whatever point he was trying to make. Insult and repeat.

What was the point of your c-n-p job referring to Reagan? First you wrongly claim unemployment was at 10+% for four years and then point at something you called "Keynesian" to prove, I guess, that President Toonces was following the same prescription? How so? And doesn't your string of complaints about Reagan kind of demolish the point you were flailing at making?

Right now, I would estimate the unemployed to be at at least 14%, and it was probably at that level when Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was at the helm

Bzzzzzt! Wrong again Jeremy. Now using my superior reading comprehension and research skills, you will find that unemployment was 7.1% when Ronaldus Magnus took over and finished out at 5.5% when he left office.

"I'm not here to defend the "banks," but without them how exactly do you propose the economy function?"

I do not want or suggest the banks should fail, but they must be put under the lash of strict regulation...which they are fighting.

That aside, our economy cannot truly recover until substantive, well-paying jobs are returned to our shores from off-shore. At present, I don't even see a slowing of the off-shoring murder of our domestic job market, much less a halt or reversal.

A true stimulus would have provided billions for a Federal Works program...paying people, putting them to work rebuilding our aging and decrepit national infrastructure, building high-speed rail nation-wide, etc. Also, we could have provided direct assistance to those losing their homes and prosecuted those who sold them worthless mortgages, (rather than reward them with stimulus money).

Calypso Facto said...The "unemployment rate" being discussed is what the U.S. Government posts.

Not what we think it is, or wonder what it is...it's the rate that is released by the federal government.

And once again: "Right now, I would estimate the unemployed to be at at least 14%, and it was probably at that level when Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was at the helm...BUT...that's NOT how the government reports U.E."

And based on your comment, you must also feel Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was some kind of real "uncontrolled government" spending asshole??

LOL! I have to hand it to you Jeremy, you do deflection well.

Well lets see, how about you do some reasearch and let me know what the percentage of Reagan spending vs GDP and get back to me. Cause that is the issue with Greece, spending as a proportion of GDP and why they are teetering on the edge of economic collapse.

I agree, but many of the jobs that are offshore are either not high paying positions or the amount of money saved by corporations is so great, you'll never get them to hire Americans at much higher rates. (Stockholders want "profits" and profits have nothing to do with jingoistic management.)

"A true stimulus would have provided billions for a Federal Works program...paying people, putting them to work rebuilding our aging and decrepit national infrastructure, building high-speed rail nation-wide, etc."

All of that is included in the package at hand, but you don't just fire up such work overnight. Each and every state is buried in debt and it will take some time to get things under control. When Reagan had his recession...why didn't he do what you propose, instead of massively cutting taxes, only to raise them again? Why did HE increase the national debt the way he did?

"Also, we could have provided direct assistance to those losing their homes and prosecuted those who sold them worthless mortgages, (rather than reward them with stimulus money)."

I think this is being addressed, but we're talking about millions and millions of homes and commercial properties throughout the entire country. Are you proposing the Federal Government take over these mortgages...as in "BIG GOVERNMENT? EXPANDING THE DEFICIT?

As to prosecuting whoever, it's such a tangled web I don't even know where one would start.

I do believe this, and I have plenty of friends and associates who are in the investment/banking community who agree: Without the bailout (800 billion via G.W. Bush...remember him?) and the stimulus (Obama) and continued spending programs...the entire worldwide economy would have been turned upside down and we'd probably be mired in a deep depression right now.

Hoosier - "Well lets see, how about you do some reasearch and let me know what the percentage of Reagan spending vs GDP and get back to me. Cause that is the issue with Greece, spending as a proportion of GDP and why they are teetering on the edge of economic collapse."

First of all, comparing Greece's economy to ours is rather lame. Any percentage comparisons would be ridiculous.

But here...read on:

Reagan did not achieve a significant reduction in federal spending as a percent of national output. Federal spending was 22.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 1981, increased somewhat during the middle years of his administration, and declined to 22.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 1989.

The privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent.(Library of Economics)

Sorry Jeremy, but I don't buy your stimulus employment numbers. You need links to those sources. It beggers the mind to think that unemployment is up by maybe 2% while the "stimulus" added almost 2 million jobs.

My view is that this is a result of the Keynesian fallacy - only counting the jobs directly or indirectly created by the spending, but ignoring the jobs lost as a result. Yes, there is a Keynesian multiplier (much used to justify this boondoggle), but it is lower than the opposite multiplier - the number of jobs lost paying for the stimulus.

Keynesian economics depends on the Manna from Heaven theory - that the money used to pay for the spending drops from heaven, and that the rest of the economy (and esp. the taxpayers) don't have to pay for it somehow. But we can already see this falling apart, as President Obama, in order to pay down the deficit that he caused by the borrowing to support this spending, is talking about raising taxes (or letting them rise back up after the Bush tax cuts expire) on the middle class.

Always keep that in mind - the reason that the Democrats are talking tax increases right now is that they wasted so much money so irresponsibly on what they call Keynesian stimulus. If they hadn't hired all those government workers and given federal, state, and local government workers raises, and overall just spread the wealth around a lot (especially to their friends), there would be far, far less pressure for a tax increase on the productive sector of the economy in the midst of the biggest recession of our lifetimes.

If you want to prove your point, then give us links to the studies showing that employment actually increased because of the Keynesian spending, and we can track down the bona fides and reputability of those figures. But just throwing them out makes most of us think that you just pulled them off of Kos or some other far left site.

First of all, comparing Greece's economy to ours is rather lame. Any percentage comparisons would be ridiculous.

I wasn't comparing their economy to ours you idiot. Jesus talk about lack of reading comprehension. I was talking about government spending as a proportion of GPD. Greece's spending on social programs alone constituted over 50% of the country's GDP. You don't have to compare that to any other nation's economy to know that's essentially unsustainable.

Reagan did not achieve a significant reduction in federal spending as a percent of national output. Federal spending was 22.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 1981, increased somewhat during the middle years of his administration, and declined to 22.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 1989.

Ah so Federal spending vs/ GDP under Reagan was pretty much was stable for an eight year period and essentially averaged 22%.

First off Jeremy,I may be an asshole, but I am not an ordinary asshole. The worst thing in life you can be is ordinary.

The unemployed are lazy. Pure lazy. They would rather sit home and wait for a career collecting unemployment instead of working. There are jobs, they are not glamorous but they are jobs. Work. Or do the over-educated idiots like you find it too demeaning to work at something like a fast food restaurant, grocery store, or retail store?

I love the fact that when you are proven dead wrong you immediately resort to name calling. It reallllly enhances your credibility.

You are just like all the rest of the far left- crude, boorish, vulgar, obscene, profane, and base. The only classes you were able to pass were in scatology 101-401.

That's a real laugh Jeremy. NYT Business Section. What do their writers know about business? If they knew so much, they would be trying to save the NYT from its impending bankruptcy. Reading the NYT business section is like the comics without the pictures.

Oh, and before you trot out how many prizes they won- journalism prizes are political, like the Nobel Peace Prize. They are meaningless.

Hoosier - You post this: "Well lets see, how about you do some reasearch and let me know what the percentage of Reagan spending vs GDP and get back to me. Cause that is the issue with Greece, spending as a proportion of GDP and why they are teetering on the edge of economic collapse."

Hoosier - "I wasn't comparing their economy to ours you idiot."

Oh, now I see. The GDP of any country has absolutely nothing to do with their..."economy?"

As to their "percentage" of GDP, that would obviously pertain to whether they provide social programs that we do not, how many people hold government related jobs, and of course, the SIZE of the GDP in the first place.

Greece has a GDP of $341.6 Billion($30,500 Per capita)- #33rdSo they spend about $170 BILLION

While we roll in at:

$14.441 trillion($47,500 Per capita) -1stSpending about 2.8 TRILLION

And once again: I didn't blame Goldman Sachs for Greece's meltdown...ONLY that they apparently contributed to it.

Jeremy...When a new idea is started as a business here in the USA, it will be patent protected , maybe, seldom in China, and as soon as it takes off the jobs it creates are suddenly shipped to the low wage world in the Caribbean, the Eastern Rim countries and China. We need something that requires work here. ( Did you know that all pineapple processing jobs are no longer located next to the fields in Hawaii...the fruit is shipped to the Philippines where it is canned, etc. and the shipped back from there ) We need #1 to use our coal, gas, oil cheap resources to make jobs in manufacturing plants here that are now efficient enough to compete. So what does Obama and Soros have as their goal # 1 of all goals? why it is only the legal destruction of our sole chance to remain economically strong using our resources advantage here in the USA. They base that on a BIG LIE about CO2 being Pollution. Explain that one. I will give you a hint: Fifth Columnists.

They are and always have been considered one of the premier news publications in the entire world.

Just because you're not literate enough to read it, and consider papers like the Washington Times or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity as sources of your news...makes your opinion meaningless.

As to their "impending" bankruptcy...every news organization in the country and the world for that matter is struggling because of the "free" news via the internet, and the economy driving ad sales down.

traditionalguy - If you can come up with an idea that provides corporate America with labor that is as cheap as what they can find elsewhere, start sending your emails to the CEO's.

Corporations are in business to make "profits" for their shareholders (you know...like the insurance companies that have quadrupled theirs over the past 8 years)...and until corporations decide to do business for fun, versus such profit...many jobs are gone...FOREVER.

As an example: It costs United Airlines about $10 a day, per telephone representative, to answer telephones, make reservations, etc. by locating their call centers in India...versus about $100+ to have it here.

Now...if you're a shareholder...where do YOU suggest they locate the call center?

And it's considerably more of a savings for companies that don't need people to handle the kinds of calls an airline would need.

"Good thinking Robert. Have the federal government provide everyone with a job and a home. That should get the economy firing on all cylinders in no time at all."

Have you got a better idea? Please don't suggest we put our unemployed and newly homeless on slow (or fast) boats to China and other points east, north, south and west outside our "homeland" (detestable term, smacking of xenophobia and the Nazis)to snap up the jobs being permanently furloughed abroad.

I suppose if we wait long enough, desperate Americans will be willing to work for less than the pittances paid to overseas labor, and we'll see jobs begin to flow back to our shores, along with the institution of indentured servitude.

In the meantime, our infrastructure continues to crumble and millions sit idle with no jobs.

Robert - I understand why you want the government to help out, but how does it square with the maniacal right wing mantra that President Obama is spending too much and allowing the government to grow too big?

The entire tea bagger enterprise (and it is indeed a financial enterprise for many) is based on just the opposite.

You actually think the GOP would vote yes...for once...if Obama suddenly suggested we have the government provide jobs for everybody?

Jeremy...The CEOs will start using American labor as soon as the Politicians vote out the per worker legal costs of workers comp, unemployment tax, social security matching, minimum wage and affirmative action hires. That is the fact jack. I fthat is not "Fair" then open up shut down the coal, oil and gas fields ASAP. Doing nothing because Marin County millionaires have all they need invested into Swiss Gold Francs is no reason to condemn the future of all other living Americans to no jobs and mega inflation planned for them by Obama. Let's elect Palin and fix things.

Jeremy,Were Obama other than a dithering bureaucrat with no spine or convictions, he could have seized the moment in January 2009 and used his bully pulpit to put forth a raft of policy initiatives meant to get people working, keeping them in their homes, and holding the rapists on Wall Street to strict regulatory oversight and specific conditions as a prerequisisite to their receiving any bailout dollars. The zeitgeist and public sentiment was for it--the distinct minority opinion of the right-wingers, tea-baggers, and barking loons and their hysterical braying notwithstanding.

He's lost that moment, never to be retrieved, and he never had the character for it. Given that his inside circle and members of his administration are furloughs from Wall Street, the fix was obviously in from the git.

I forgot to add...Obama had--and has--a Democratic majority in Congress. Had he and the Dems really wanted to do other than serve the oligarchs--as they are doing, paranoid fantasies of Glenn Dick and his ilk that Obama is imposing a communist/socialist/fascist (sic) regime on America to the nonsensical contrary--they could have done so.

Bush and Cheney were and are evil motherfuckers, but they knew how to turn the engines of government to their purposes, even when it didn't involve violating the law. Omama and the Dems are feckless in this regard...or simply pretending to be so because they don't really want to rock the ship of state in order to truly serve the public. They're serving who they want to serve.

traditionalguy said..."Jeremy...The CEOs will start using American labor as soon as the Politicians vote out the per worker legal costs of workers comp, unemployment tax, social security matching, minimum wage and affirmative action hires."

So you're against workers compensation, unemployment tax, social security, minimum wage and whatever you're referring to as "affirmative actionhires?"

That's what we had at the turn of the century...and you think that was good?

Where in the world do you work and what would make you think something so ridiculous?

(I'm not saying Obama and the Dems aren't furthering a police state in America--in this respect also they're continuing the destruction of the rule of law as their predecessors; I'm just saying the notion of a combined "communist, socialist, and fascist" regime is a Frankensteinian absurdity.)

So Robert, do you propose then that government advisors / political appointees / congresscritters should be like a priesthood, having no past conflicts of interest because they never work in the private sector? That seems to be the only way to avoid the charge that whatever action they take is tainted by connection to Wall Street.

Yeah, I don't like the idea that congressmen can quit and become a lobbyist tomorrow. Or that lobbyists (out of the goodness of their hears, I'm sure) help write laws the regulate their own industries. I think I can agree that industry is too cozy with the very lawmakers & regulators that are supposed to watch them. Big business in turn uses their political muscle to keep out competition from potential upstarts.

But the only alternative is that you have a political class made up of people who've never done anything outside of government, and don't have any experience of being in industry trying to make a product while answering to government regulators.

The easiest way to get Democrats and Republicans to hold hands and sing kumbayah and get things done? Third party. It's the only way.

A few congressmen and a governor or two elected, third party, would have Democrats and Republicans suddenly forced to work together. It would be an overnight transformation, because the rules would have changed.

The Tea Party right now is the only thing I can think of that approaches this.

Jeremy...The need to eat and live indoors trumps the needs of many to be taken care of by a Bankrupt Governmental System that is plotting their demise anyway to reduce the carrying load of human life on the planet. People cannot eat promises coming from such a government that has nothing except debt. People must have SOME valuable product that they can market. Suicide to please the welfare state's memories of past glories has no appeal to the people at the end of their rope. Ask Evan Bayh.

Jeremy, Jeremy,IPA never represented the CPD. You cannot even get something that simple straight. We had the FOP, fondly know by us as "Fuck Our Police"- because that is all that corrupt so called union ever did.

I keep forgetting you are mentally handicapped. I have heard about your condition before- a brain without a mind. I do feel some pity for you. It is really a dirty shame they no longer put people like you in institutions where you can get the loving care you desperately need.

The tea baggers hardly see in Obama something so benign as a "dithering bureaucrat" lacking spine or convictions, and neither do they recognize that he serves the same larger interests as does their pre-fab plastic heroine Ms. Palin. They see Obama as far more malignant, as an agent of Satan, Mohammed, Karl Marx, Lenin or Stalin, or some combination of these, depending on their own frames of reference and degrees of sanity or craziness, smarts or ignorance. (Smarts and sanity is relative when speaking of this crowd.)

They see him as the determined and aggressive bringer of apocalypse, rather than as what he is, a clerk doing the bidding of the financiers and war profiteers.

I don't mean to get into an argument with you, as you are one of the few here who is not part of the rightist hive mind, but you do need to take a clearer look at Obama. If I am too harsh on him--although I think I am not--you are certainly too charitable.

I hate to do this because I disagree very strongly with Keynes, but Keynes did NOT advocate unlimited deficit spending. He was quite clear that the government should not spend more in recession than it could realistically retire when the economy recovered.

Moreover Keynes believed stimulus should be aimed toward private business, not government programs for the reason that private industry created more durable jobs (and goods.)

@ Joe"Ironically, John Maynard Keynes might not be aKeynesian if he were alive today. He certainly would notbe a proponent of big government. In correspondence withanother British economist, he agreed with the premise of“25 percent [of GDP] as the maximum tolerable proportionof taxation.”2 America is now well past that stage..." Cato

wv: eukidec. To hit over the head with a Hawaiian stringed instrument, to wit: Aloha Kabong.